Critical Reasoning

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. However, buying prescription drug coverage, like buying health insurance coverage, is not like buying a car. The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs. Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time; this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


The first is a fact that the candidate argues against; the second is the ultimate claim that the candidate supports.

The first is an observation which the candidate acknowledges as true but to which he is ultimately opposed; the second is a claim that the candidate uses as evidence to support his ultimate position.

The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

The first is an observation that the candidate argues against; the second is an observation that the candidate supports.

The first is an observation made by the candidate; the second is an assertion that the candidate ultimately opposes.